Interpretation of ICJ in Nuclear Weapon Disarmament: Marshall Island v. the United Kingdom
Abstract
In 2014, the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) filed lawsuits against several major Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In connection with the conclusion of the nuclear arms race and disarmament, RMI filed a lawsuit alleging a breach of negotiating duties. However, the ICJ concluded that such a complaint should be dismissed since there was no urgency in the case. There is a concern that this judgment does not follow the pattern and practice of the ICJ’s rulings. Some scholars conclude that there is a potential of power or political link in the ICJ judgment that cannot be explained by law. The United Kingdom has nuclear weapons and dominates the nuclear arms race. The purpose of this study is to examine the hegemony NWS, which leads the ICJ to reject the Marshal Islands case in the context of negotiating duties related to the cessation of the race and nuclear disarmament. The research method applied in this study is a normative legal research method. Secondary data derived from the statutory approach, analytical approach, legal conceptual approach, and factual approach were used in the study. The result of the study showed that the ICJ has jurisdiction over the case to give advisory opinions and to settle this case in order to give additional provision in Article VI of The Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968 (NPT).
References
Amwee, D. (2018). Nuclear Weapons Before The International Court Of Justice: A Critique Of The Marshall Islands V United Kingdom Decision. VUWLR, 49, 59–60.
Bonafe, B. I. (2017). Establishing the Existence of a Dispute before the international Court of Justice: Drawsback and Implication. Www.Qil-Qdi.Org. Retrivied: http://www.qil-qdi.org/establishing-the-existence-of-a-dispute-before-the-international-court-of-justice-glimpses-of-flexibility-within-formalism/.
Burroughs. (2014). Overview about the Marshall Island Case. Lcnp.Org. Retrivied: https://www.lcnp.org/marshall-islands.
Charlson, J. (2019). Is the NPT Still Relevant? - How to progress the NPT’s Disarmament Provisions. Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament, 2(1), 97. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/25751654.2019.1611187
Docherty. B. (2018). A ‘light for all humanity’: the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons and the progress of humanitarian disarmamentNo Title. Global Change, Peace & Security, 1, 19. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14781158.2018.1472075
Dummond, B. (2019). UK Nuclear Deterrence Policy: An Unlawful Threat of Force. Journal on the Use of Force and International Law, 6(2), 193. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/20531702.2019.1669323
Ford, C. A. (2007). Debating Disarmament Interpreting Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. NonProliferation Review, 14(3), 401. https://doi.org/10.1080/10736700701611720
Gauffin. Maria Velentina. Y. (2019). Analysis of the case “Obligations concerning negotiations relating to the cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament†(Marshall Islands v. Pakistan, India, and United Kingdom). Universitat d’Alacant Universidad de Alicante, 11.
Harrald Muller & Carmen Wunderlich. (2020). Nuclear Disarmament without the Nuclear-Weapon States: The Nuclear Weapon Ban Treaty. American Academy of Arts & Sciences, 149(2), 173. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_01796
Ibrahim, J. (2005). Teori & Metodologi Penelitian Hukum Normatif, Teori Metodologi Penelitian. Banyu Media Publishing.
ICJ. (2016). Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. United Kingdom).
International Committee of Red Cross. (1977). Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1).
Ministry of Defence. (2015). Policy paper 2010 to 2015 government policy: UK nuclear deterrent. Www.Gov.Uk.
Nasution. (2002). Metode Penelitian. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
NTI.org. (2021a). United Kingdom. Www.Nti.Org. Retrivied: https://www.nti.org/countries/united-kingdom/
NTI.org. (2021b). United States Overview. Www.Nti.Org. Retrivied: https://www.nti.org/countries/united-states/
Nugraha. (2021). Interpretasi International Court of Justice (ICJ) pada Pasal VI Perjanjian Non-Poliferation Treaty 1968 (NPT). Arena Hukum, 14(2), 361. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.arenahukum.2021.01402.8
Palestini. L. (2017). Forget About Mavrommatis and Judicial Economy: The Alleged Absence of a Dispute in the Cases Concerning the Obligations to Negotiate the Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Rece and Nuclear Disarmament. Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 1, 12. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idx008
Rabinowitz. (2019). When Pigs Fly’: Britain, Canada and Nuclear Exports to Israel, 1958-1974. Diplomacy and Statecraft, 30(5), 707. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09592296.2019.1672015
Ramkumar, M., & Singh, A. (2017). The Nuclear Disarmament Cases: Is Formalistic Rigour in Establishing Jurisdiction Impeding Access to Justice? Utrecht Journal of International and European Law, 33(85), 128–134. https://doi.org/10.5334/ujiel.422
Simon, D. (2005). Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty is a Pactum De Contrahendo and has Serious Legal Obligation by Implication. Journal of International Law & Policy II, 213.
Suaidah. (2016). Vokalitas Perempuan Marshall Islands dalam Menyuarakan Isu Dampak Uji Coba nuklir Amerika Serikat (AS) di Republik Marshall Islands. Jurnal Analisis Hubungan Internasional, 5(2), 546.
Tom Sauer & Mathias Reveraert. (2018). The Potential Stigmatizing Effect of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. The Nonproliferation Review, 1, 6. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/10736700.2018.1548097
Statute of the International Court of Justice, Article 38(1)(d) (1946).
The 1946 Statute of the International Court of Justice.
Abstract viewed = 428 times
PDF downloaded = 478 times
